10/08/2022 – Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 79 published on 01/09/2022
Court dismisses claim for alleged oppression in relation to noise from unit above
The owner claimed for oppression due to alleged failure by the condominium corporation to take reasonable steps to address noise from the unit above. The source of the noise was medical equipment needed for the care of one of the occupants of the unit (a child with a disability). The owner of the unit above (Ms Ceronja) was not joined as a party to the proceeding.
The Court dismissed the claim. The Court said:
In the case at bar, the Respondent sent its employees to the Applicant’s and to Ms. Ceronja’s unit on multiple occasions. When they identified remediable instances of noise, such as where Ms. Ceronja’s daughter was running around the apartment, the Applicant asked that the bothersome activity cease. On the other hand, they could not, and would not, ask that the medical care needed by Ms. Ceronja’s son cease.
…
The condominium corporation – the one and only Respondent before me – has done what it could and has not been oppressive in its conduct. It is not in a position, and cannot be expected, to either do internal renovations to another unit owner’s unit. And given the conflicting sound engineering evidence and the fact that the noise is non-bothersome all day long, the Respondent is not in a position to compel another unit owner to renovate her unit. In any case, the Court certainly would not be in a position to order such a remedy without fulsome participation and legal submissions from that unit owner.